Why suburbia sucks (Atlanta: bars, affordable housing, cars)

[wasel]

Originally Posted by abalashov

It's not dead for me. The relevant portion is:

Yes, I saw that the first time you posted that stat. I was simply pointing out how the available funds are represented for each account at current balance.

[abalashov]

I still think this, which I posted earlier, is by far the most insightful treatment of the topic of funding priorities and regulatory hurdles for highways vs. transit:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/res...5_beimborn.pdf

[sstsunami55]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Big European cities have car oriented suburbs that stretch as far as the eye can see.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pa...522219!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3911...8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lo...277583!6m1!1e1

But they're not necesarily the majority of suburbs in Europe.

[sstsunami55]

Originally Posted by abalashov

Somewhat. Things are evolving more in that direction, in strictly relative terms, but the limitations are stark and have been extensively discussed in this thread. The short version is that we've got a few pockets of somewhat usable (if rather low-density) urbanism in a huge ocean of highway sprawl, which means, in effect, that a car is required regardless. Absent regionally integrated planning vision and investment, it'll continue to be that way.

It hardly needs to turn into Paris, Barcelona or London to be viable.

Absolutely true. Islands of urbanity don't count as true urbanity if most people have to drive there. That's basically kitschy drive-to urbanism. So yes, it's definitely a regional problem, not just a local one. All of you suburbia defenders' knee-jerk reaction will be like, "We got urbanity in the suburbs too. Our suburbs have walkability too!". Yeah, maybe several blocks of it and then it disappears.

[abalashov]

I've heard folks occasionally suggest that the formal presence of sidewalks on something like Northpoint Pkwy is an invitation to walk, if I really wanted to, and that if I don't, it merely serves to prove their point that nobody actually wants to walk, that car = freedom, etc.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by abalashov

Not "as far as the eye can see", but they certainly exist. And all of the places you showed are considerably more dense and compact than the average Metro Atlanta exurban cul-de-sac.

So are we talking about density or car-dependency?

As these locations show, you can have fairly dense residential areas that are still built around the automobile rather than pedestrians.

[abalashov]

Originally Posted by arjay57

So are we talking about density or car-dependency?

The question presumes that the two are not intimately related.

But yes, car-oriented development exists everywhere. This has already been acknowledged. One of the downsides of being a major global cultural centre is that there's eclecticism, room for copying even bad ideas. :-)

Still, one would not say that most of Paris looks like this, or that one can scarcely find anything else in France. That's the more significant issue.

[demonta4]

Today is the moment I realized that I want to major in Urban Planning/ and actually take it seriously. I went out today to simply go to the store (Gas Station store at that), a trip that for many around the world would take 10 minutes maximum. It took me an hour (round trip) and I'm pretty tall so I walk faster than most people. Not only was it unnecessarily long, it didn't even feel like I traveled a long distance. It was just a trip past single family housing. When I google how far I traveled, it was about 2 miles. Whoever created a street design where it takes an hour to walk 2 miles is an idiot. I could easily cut across people's yards and the high school to save time (many people do) but I don't want to trespass. It's just ridiculous that anyone would think completely separating neighborhoods whose street grids could easily interact is a sensible idea, even for driving. The first thing a developer should do when building a neighborhood should be to make it acessable, something many of our so called planners missed.

[abalashov]

Originally Posted by demonta4

Today is the moment I realized that I want to major in Urban Planning/ and actually take it seriously. I went out today to simply go to the store (Gas Station store at that), a trip that for many around the world would take 10 minutes maximum. It took me an hour (round trip) and I'm pretty tall so I walk faster than most people. Not only was it unnecessarily long, it didn't even feel like I traveled a long distance. It was just a trip past single family housing. When I google how far I traveled, it was about 2 miles. Whoever created a street design where it takes an hour to walk 2 miles is an idiot. I could easily cut across people's yards and the high school to save time (many people do) but I don't want to trespass. It's just ridiculous that anyone would think completely separating neighborhoods whose street grids could easily interact is a sensible idea, even for driving. The first thing a developer should do when building a neighborhood should be to make it acessable, something many of our so called planners missed.

Testify.

The other problem is that you probably had to walk from your residentially zoned house area to the commercially zoned gas station area. That's a pretty contrived artifice as well.

Now, the naysayers will say, "WTF? I don't want the house next to me to become a Citgo with a 7-11." What they don't realise is there are intelligent ways to organise these things so that they can coexist in roughly the same neighbourhood without turning your house into a drive-thru.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by abalashov

The question presumes that the two are not intimately related.

Right, I don't think density and car dependence are necessarily related.

Take areas like Virginia Highland or little Five Points. They're fairly low density but are regarded as walkable.